Valencia: Vocational Testing Supported Permanent Total Disability Without Replacing Medical Opinion

Review the primary official source.

Valencia v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC, ADJ13633820, examined when vocational evidence may rebut a scheduled rating without crossing into medical opinion. The Board denied the employer’s reconsideration petition and left in place the WCJ’s finding of 100-percent permanent disability. The panel found the applicant’s vocational analysis substantial because it used medical restrictions supplied by the PQME, standardized testing, observed functional tolerance, and the worker’s actual educational and linguistic baseline.

Injury record, trial posture, and competing vocational opinions

The parties stipulated to industrial injury to multiple body parts arising from work as a driver during April 2019 to April 2020, with other claimed parts litigated. A September 2025 decision found industrial injury to the shoulders, knees, right foot, cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, and elbows based on PQME Dr. Vlad Gendelman’s reports. At the later permanent-disability trial, ratings ranged from 69 or 72 percent in the defense calculations to 75 percent from the DEU, while the applicant claimed permanent total disability based on the medical and vocational record.

The WCJ credited vocational expert Enrique Vega over defense expert Nick Corso and found 100-percent permanent disability. The employer argued on reconsideration that Vega used limitations not stated by the PQME, gave medical opinions, and relied on nonindustrial factors. It also sought development of the record because the PQME had not reviewed the vocational reports.

Doctrinal framework for rebutting the scheduled rating

The panel situated the dispute within Labor Code section 4660 and the decisions in Fitzpatrick, Ogilvie, Dahl, and LeBoeuf. A worker does not receive a wholly separate route to permanent total disability under section 4662(b), but may rebut the scheduled rating by establishing an omission or calculation problem or showing that industrial restrictions prevent rehabilitation and cause a greater loss of future earning capacity than the schedule reflects.

The panel synthesized the proof as substantial medical evidence of work restrictions; vocational evidence that those restrictions prevent rehabilitation and competition in the open labor market; and medical evidence that the restrictions are industrial. Both medical and vocational opinions must rest on pertinent facts and reasoned analysis rather than speculation.

Why Vega’s analysis was substantial evidence

Vega administered standardized psychometric and dexterity tests, recorded very low scores, and observed hand tremors, slow pace, and difficulty remaining seated. He applied the PQME’s industrial restrictions to the applicant’s actual capabilities and concluded that the worker could neither perform past work nor meet alternative light or sedentary demands. The panel explained that “[o]bserving an injured employee’s presentation and functional tolerances during testing falls squarely within the scope of a vocational assessment.” Valencia, ADJ13633820, slip op. at 16 (Cal. Workers’ Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 11, 2026).

Those observations complemented rather than overwrote the medical restrictions. By contrast, the panel found Corso’s analysis unreliable because it elevated the applicant’s aptitude and language baselines to hypothetical averages, producing an employability assessment of a hypothetical worker rather than the actual employee in the labor market.

Rejected arguments, disposition, and boundaries

The Board rejected reopening merely so the PQME could review vocational reports because that review would not materially resolve the presented issues. It also declined to reopen apportionment: the PQME found no nonindustrial apportionment and the employer did not carry its burden. The petition for reconsideration was denied, leaving the 100-percent finding intact.

The panel did not authorize vocational experts to diagnose conditions or create medical restrictions. The distinction was evidence-specific: the expert could observe performance during valid vocational testing and apply existing medical restrictions to actual vocational capacity. As a panel decision, Valencia is citable for persuasive reasoning but is not an en banc precedent.

What this means in practice

• A vocational report should identify the medical restrictions it accepts and show how testing connects them to employability.
• Observed pace, dexterity, and positional tolerance should be documented as vocational observations, not new medical diagnoses.
• The analysis should use the worker’s actual educational and linguistic baseline rather than a hypothetical average person.
• Competing reports should be tested for factual accuracy, methodology, apportionment assumptions, and a reasoned labor-market bridge.

Related reading: California workers’ compensation practice; Claim process guide; Medical-care and benefits FAQ.